Category Archives: Conservatism

Quiet Rebellion In Connecticut

Conservatism, GUNS, Individual Rights

The state of Connecticut has created felons at the stroke of a pen. As a consequence, a quiet rebellion is brewing there.

It would appear that “tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called ‘assault rifles,’ they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.”

Via The Blaze:

… officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the report states.

Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned. …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights’ (Constitution’s About Process)

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Gender, Homosexuality, Law, The Courts

“Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The ban on the ban is unconstitutional.

This was the gist of broadcaster Mark Levin’s angry tirade against the humdrum, and certainly predicable, decision of a federal judge to strike down “Oklahoma’s voter-approved ban” on gay marriage.

At the center of conservative contretemps are similar decisions in California, New Mexico and Utah, following on which U.S. District Judge Terence Kern had “determined that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment” violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It stipulates that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Broadly speaking, WND’s Alan Keyes concurred with Levin, alluding to the Constitution’s 10th and Ninth Amendments by which “the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to … deny the antecedent rights retained by the people.”

Indeed, “the prevailing view in 1791,” observed The Honorable Robert T. Donnelly, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, “was that the national government had only delegated powers and that reserved to the people was an undefined sphere of non-government within which people may not be interfered with by government.”

But that was then.

In voiding “voter-approved law,” Justice Kern has resorted to perfectly proper 14th Amendment judicial activism. Deploying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Kern nullified the 10th. It specifies that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment, the Constitution’s federal scheme has long since been obliterated by the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine.

What does this mean?

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. …

… Either way, the freedoms afforded by federalism are no longer because American federalism is no longer. …

… Conservatives as astute as Mr. Levin, Esq., ought to quit misleading their readers and listeners about the restoration of a constitutional structure that has suffered death by a thousand cuts, long before the dreadful cur Obama appeared on the scene. …

Read the complete column. “Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is now on WND.


At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact

UPDATED I (1/24): American constitutional federalism is about process, rather than what law you like or don’t. The process is clear. The Courts were never meant to tell people how to run their homes and communities. It’s a column I’ve been wanting to write for a while. It’s quite disturbing how little people understand about a structure/scheme that is no longer and that was intended to protect liberty. The 14th is a real problem, as it killed the 10th.

UPDATE II: Facebook thread:

Todd Frank: The post-civil war Republicans did not think several things through when they drafted the 14th amendment. That said, there still has to be some sort of remedy when states themselves trample on the rights of the individual short of giving the US government carte-blanche to do whatever they want to us.

Ilana Mercer : Todd Frank, you make a good point. But just about every state had itself a constitution with a bill of rights.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Conservatives Adopting Lefty Language About ‘Income Inequality’

Business, Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Private Property, The State

A more meaningful index than “income inequality”—it implies that income equality is the thing to strive for, heaven help us!—would be the correlation between the increasing balance sheets of the central banks of the world and so-called increasing wealth discrepancies.

Conservatives rarely argue the morality of capitalism and individual liberty. If they do debate, it is about the utility of freedom to the common good. The entire impetus of Republican-Party operatives is to keep up with the issues the Democrats introduce to distract from the destructive effects of galloping statism. So if the latter decry “income inequality,” the former affirm that they too worry themselves sick over whatever it is the Democrats are droning on about.

Today, Fox News reported gravely that the “World’s richest 85 people have as much as bottom half the population.” Similarly, this writer assures his readers that “Inequality is a Conservative Issue.”

“The Capitalist Professor” George Reisman is having none of it. He writes “In Defense of Business Fortunes and the Destructive Effects of Imposing Economic Equality,” at, @GGReisman:

1. A fortune is accumulated by means of earning a high rate of profit on capital and heavily saving and reinvesting it year after year.

2. The high rate of profit is achieved by introducing newer, better products or producing existing products at a lower cost.

3. Sooner or later, competition brings down a high rate of profit to the general level. To go on earning it, further innovation is necessary.

4. For example, to maintain its high rate of profit, Apple has had to repeatedly improve its products and introduce several major new ones.

5. Had Apple stood still, its initially very profitable products, made obsolete by competition, would now be selling at huge losses.

6. The high profits are generally invested in the means of producing the very kind of products in which the innovations take place.

7. For example, Apple’s profits are invested in the expanded and improved production of Apple’s products.

8. Thus, business fortunes under capitalism represent ever better, less expensive products produced with capital constituted by those fortunes.

9. The fortunes originate in profits and are used as capital. Both ways they serve the general buying public. They also pay wages and salaries.

10. The existence of fortunes under capitalism benefits everyone in his capacity both as a buyer of products and seller of labor.

11. Imposing economic equality requires the confiscation of high profits. It would abort the earning of fortunes and stifle economic progress.

12. Advocates of economic equality know nothing about profits, innovation, or capital. They believe that wealth is a pile of consumers’ goods.

13. The capitalists, whom they depict as fat men, allegedly have too much of this pile. Some of it must be given to the starving masses.

14. Thus, imposing economic equality is also a policy of seizing capital in order to consume it—eating the seed corn and being impoverished.

15. Advocates of economic equality are wilfully ignorant of economics. They are fueled by envy and resentment, biting the hands that feed them.

16. Socialism/Communism is their philosophy. Stalin and Mao are their heroes. Famine, slave labor camps, and mass death are their legacy.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Why I Miss Lawrence Auster, RIP

Conservatism, Critique, Intellectualism, Left-Liberalism, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy

Brilliantly did the late Larry Auster dissect the demise of Russel Kirk’s conservatism at The American Conservative (TAC) magazine. Division of labor being part of a natural intellectual order that arises, Auster would have likely left it to me to point out the pimped intellectual principles this AC “writer” evinces in her meandering Mandela entry, in which “Madiba” is contrasted, in a manner, with George Washington. (Compare that AC crap with “Mandela Mum About Systematic Murder Of Whites.” You can’t!)

Auster was at his rhetorical best when deconstructing the “typically shapeless pieces”—or “weird and solipsistic” was another of his wonderful coinages—that this unthinking “conservative” crowd disgorged. About the American Conservative’s pipsqueak writers, Mr. Auster wrote with the studied contempt they deserve.

I won’t lie. Larry could be incorrigibly and unforgivingly deceptive (as detailed here). Other than to respond, when he took license with the truth (as I did in said post), I always uttered a silent “thank you” for the dirty work Larry did. (As did I donate to his account, in appreciation of the originality of a “View From The Right.” Its author was always most gracious.)

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

For Wanton Destruction (& Deaths That’ll Follow) Democrats Deserve Kim-Jong-Un Justice

Conservatism, Democrats, Healthcare, Justice, Left-Liberalism, Media, Republicans

They may pose as adversaries on TV, but they all hang together: Conservatives love banal-brain Juan Williams, boorish Bob Beckel and the weak-minded Lanny Davis. Sean Hannity even advertized the other day that Beckel has they keys to the Hannity home.

How else would chattering class detritus such as Lanny Davis get away with twice admitting—and with no intelligent cross examination—on Fox News, that he supported Zero Care, because he and his Democratic ilk did not comprehend that the price of premiums would rise [when you pile on the coverage mandates], and that policy holders would lose coverage [when you legislate their "sub-standard" policies out of existence].


The only point Megyn Kelly’s stand-in should have made during the Davis segment is this: So you’re an imbecile, Lanny (what sort of name is that, for a man?). You can’t see a few moves ahead. Fine. We get it. But there were legions of people who spoke eloquently and endlessly about the outcome of Zero Care central planning for the country.

The main crime for which these “despicable human scum,” the words of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un about his uncle, is to implement this wrecking ball of a health-care law without consulting and heeding the clever people in the room.

For this wanton destruction, Democrats deserve Kim-Jong-Un style justice.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE VIII: Just A Girl With A Gun; Not A Gratuitous Killer (Who’s Stupid?)

Conservatism, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, GUNS, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Morality, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West

“Just A Girl With A Gun; Not A Gratuitous Killer” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“… and Esau was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field.”
— Beresheet (Genesis), 25:27

The place: a South African secondary school.

The setting: an English class.

Lights, camera, action:

The teacher is quizzing the class. One senior—she happens to be my sister—provides the rapid-fire reply:

Teacher: “What is a taxidermist?”

Sister: “a motherf-cker.”

That was a long time ago, but I have no doubt that my witty sibling would extend similar linguistic niceties (adapted to the fairer sex) to Melissa Bachman.

Ms. Bachman is described by as a big-game hunter, host of the hunting reality show, “Winchester Deadly Passion.” The controversy that continues to eddy around Bachman “began when she posted a picture of herself with an African lion on her webpage and Facebook page. She wrote of the trophy pic: ‘An incredible day hunting in South Africa! Stalked inside 60-yards on this beautiful male lion. What a hunt!'”

South Africans were disgusted by the woman, seen here grinning (or, rather, grimacing) from ear to ear, as she crouches beside the dead beast. They want to ban her from their country.

“It’s perfectly legal,” roared the conservative pack animals stateside. Especially eager to exhibit their macho-girl credentials were the younger chicks of this silly species. …

… More to the point: an act that is legal is not necessarily moral

… At best, these “conservative” screeches can lay claim to an impoverished, utilitarian philosophy, whereby such gratuitous, showy killing is condoned because it reduces man’s evil incentives to kill unprovoked.

Another gargoyle with a gun is teletart S. E. Cupp. Here Cupp is sprawled over a bear’s carcass, facial featurs deformed in Dionysian ecstasy.

The statement must first be qualified: I am a girl with guns. The writer’s weapon of choice is the Smith and Wesson 686P .357 4″. This gorgeous piece will fend off most wild beasts. But certain bedrock principles—arguably a true conservative mindset—dictate a respect for life. A life-conserving sensibility means that guns are meant for self-defense, not for needless killing. …

IMG_4920 (Click to enlarge)

Read on. The complete column, “Just A Girl With A Gun; Not A Gratuitous Killer,” is now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact


At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE I (11/22): This column—probably one of my favorites; I’m never pleased with what I write, but this is a strong piece of writing—is making me a lot of enemies; as many, perhaps, as when I officially came out against the invasion of Iraq (Sept. 19, 2002). American “conservatives” sicken—not all, but for the most—they don’t understand a moral argument.

A paleolibertarian (at least, one who is not lazy) will make moral arguments, because of a conviction that liberty has a civilizational dimension.

Clyde Wilson, the great paleoconservative historian of the South, concurs. He writes:

Dear Lady, Good column today. I have had arguments before with some libertarians that maximum exploitation of the earth is not defensible. Stewardship with necessary use is the moral way.

It’s an honor to be called a “lady” by a chivalrous gentlemen and scholar of the South.

UPDATE II: A LESSON FROM A REAL MAN. Writes a farmer and outdoorsman from Canada:

For the most part I agree with you, especially in principle. I am not a “trophy hunter” but hunt for healthy food. I learned the lesson well when I was 13. I shot a huge bull elk from a herd that was devastating our 20 acre oats crop. I stayed home from school and it took me all day to clean, saw into six parts with a hand saw, skin and hang it. When my dad came home from working in a sawmill, he gave me a real dressing down.
“Why in hell didn’t you shoot a nice young cow?” Something you could eat in other words. Had there been such a thing back in 1954, this 7X7 “Royal” head would have easily been in upper Boone and Crockett ranking.
As it was, I only kept the antlers and eventually they were stolen from our old homestead as I had preserved them in our log “chicken house.”
It was a good lesson, as the meat was so tough and sinewy that even when my mother tried to pressure can some, it was still almost impossible to chew. Since then I always pass up “trophy” animals and only shoot when I have room in my deep freeze. Ethical trophy hunting does not distress me, as long as no meat is wasted, but publicly displaying such when most people are against any taking of wild animals, especially penned up hunts, is at best ignorant and immoral.
Bachman’s rather grotesque photo is a poignant confirmation of this. I look at “penned hunts” as no more or less terrible than shooting a steer on the farm to butcher for table meat. Penned trophy hunts are no more “hunting” than shooting fish in a barrel. Public parading of such killing is obscene at best. Killing lions, endangered in the wild as their range continues to disappear, for “sport” or “trophy” cannot be condoned. Any bets on whether the meat was saved for consumption?
… I was rooting for the lion.

UPDATE III: MANLY WOMEN ARE MUTANTS. In response to Fred Cummins on Facebook: I haven’t the faintest idea how your rant ties to my column, which came out against the un-conservative vulgarity and showy inhumanity of what goes for female conservatism. Wild animals who approach human habitat must be eliminated. I’ve said as much in “Picnic Time For Teddy Bears,” for example.
Again, nuance is lost on you guys, who find a stupid woman, playing at being a man to be a turn-on. Yuck.
As a reader once put it, “This is what happens when women try and become or perform ‘masculine’ activities. They don’t actually understand the man’s view of the world, so they fake it – usually poorly. I see this in situations like when my wife tries to watch football and be one of the guys… her comments are over the top, and lack a certain depth of understand of the game that most guys share intuitively. Your descriptions of how she *should* have reacted capture what a man would think/do in the situation much better.”

UPDATE IV: Nonsense, Nixter Jeelvy: THIS IS HOW the animals we eat live and die, cited in a fine, well-research philosophical treatise:

“Even if the animals we eat had decent lives, which they do not, we would still have to face up to the manner of their deaths: ‘No jokes here, and no turning away. Let’s say what we mean: animals are bled, skinned, and dismembered while conscious’. Safran Foer is talking specifically about cattle here, but the deaths of other animals differ only in minor details. Typically, cattle are led down a chute to a ‘knocking box’. Here, theoretically, a steel bolt is shot into the cow’s brain. ‘Sometimes the bolt only dazes the animal, which either remains conscious or wakes up as it is being ‘processed’. ‘Processing’ continues with wrapping a chain around the animal’s leg, and hoisting it into the air. Then, it is moved to a ‘sticker’, who cuts its throat. If the knocking hasn’t done its work, then, as one slaughterhouse worker put it: ‘They’d be blinking and stretching their necks from side to side, looking around, really frantic’. Then they move on to the ‘head skinner’, where the skin is peeled off the head of the animal. Some cattle, not the majority but a non-negligible minority, find themselves still conscious at this stage. Then, on to the ‘leggers’, who cut off the lower portions of the animals’ legs. At this point: ‘As far as the ones that come back to life \[go\] . . . the cattle just go wild, kicking in every direction’. …”

UPDATE IV: Salome Esterhuizen (FB): Mbe Disney movies is the culprit here. Privately owned game farms provide work for 100 000 people in SA.

Ilana Mercer: Salome Esterhuizen: Why is what you say a contradiction or mutually exclusive to what I say? Yes, jobs are had from miserable animals. Some argue this is an absolute good, others advocate a more evolved morality. I won’t patronize Sea World; you go and cheer with the masses. Ultimately, no one is advancing a legal remedy; this is a moral position. You’re talkign to someone who defended Michael Vick, for heaven’s sake.

UPDATE VI 11/23): WHO’S STUPID. This letter is funny: Writes John Russel @ WND:

“I’ve followed your columns for many years but until now I did not know that you are a complete idiot, both you and your sister.”

Er, someone has stepped right into it. Russel admits to having read me for years but has only just discovered I’m an idiot?! What kind of an idiot takes so many years to discover … You get the drift.

UPDATE VII: Another funny exchange is with Anon, at EPJ, Comments:

Anonymous November 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM:

Her sister is witty for responding “motherf-cker”? What razor sharp wit! When my dog barks its disapproval is that being witty too?

ilana mercer November 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM:

Anon: If you ask your dog what a taxidermist is and he replies “motherf-cker,” then I think you have a keeper—a witty dog indeed. But all your dog does is bark. (My parrot, on the other hand, talks. He makes a lot of sense too.) Best wishes, ilana mercer.

On the other hand, “Anon” (“NY Cynic”), if he is the same “Anon,” does a good job on the same site (@ Comments), debunking race-reality deniers: those who walk around, hands on honky ears humming loudly, until… they are coshed on the head by a black youth. Then another. And another. Apparently, according to some simple-minded libertarians, describing reality is a function of a collectivist habit of mind. Oh Buddha! If so, so-called self-styled individualists are doomed to extinction. “Collectivists”—as in a person who cleaves to reality—will outlive self-described libertarian individualists.

UPDATE VIII: Magda Cracknell Neé Steenkamp on Facebook: “My 2c.. I’m an animal lover raised in a family of hunters. To find that moral compass took some time… years in fact! Your comment is factual and most would agree, in fact this would never have made the headlines was it not for the way this young lady and her entourage left ‘respect for life’ behind and brought ‘wow look at me’ with, when she decided to hunt canned meat! Comes down to crossing that thin line…. ….have no problem with hunting for food.. in SA it’s a sacred culture handed down from Grandfather, to son, to grandsons …all taught by Granddad.. ‘what’ to shoot, ‘where’ to shoot it, ‘how’ to shoot it. Never take a hit if you feel it’s a miss…shoot only what you can carry and slaughter yourself. Golden Rule: if you can’t eat it, don’t shoot it! I will never partake in the hunt but I know how blessed we are, for my dad taught my kids to do by all that is right and good – Only kill what you can eat, and do it with respect! Human was not created Beast, but to rule over Beast… Canned Lion not my idea of hunting nor does it carry much weight when one applies the Godly instruction to rule over Beast! Canned Lion Hunt Stinks! As does any poaching activity or killing sprees conducted by man for man… ie: seal pups, rhino, dolphin slaughter, whaling…oh the things that people from the East do to cats and dogs …. just to many to mention. Not everybody abides by the rule: respect life and that is the problem! in fact I see white people killing animals the same way we see blacks killing whites these days…. just for the heck of it. That saddens me! And then to the topic of what happens at our slaughter houses in SA .. all one can do is weep…. For cruelty has become order of the day and sheeple eat packaged meat, never a thought of how it got there… a far worse journey than the buck my hubby killed with one shot, providing food for a whole winter!”

Ilana Mercer: Magda Cracknell Neé Steenkamp: “Canned lion”: that’s a brilliant way of putting it. I admire your tradition and agree with you ethics.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint